Young America's Foundation v. Berthelsen

Background

The plaintiffs were Young America’s Foundation, Students for a Conservative Voice, and Ben Shapiro. They sued University of Minnesota officials Eric W. Kaler, Michael Berthelsen, Matthew A. Clark, Troy Buhta, and Erik Dussault under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining claim alleged that, in applying the University’s event-planning and venue practices to Shapiro’s February 26, 2018 speech, the defendants violated the First Amendment by discriminating against the plaintiffs’ conservative viewpoint.

The University ultimately held the speech in the North Star Ballroom on the St. Paul portion of campus. The venue was full, with approximately 450 attendees. Shapiro spoke without major disruption, the speech was livestreamed, and approximately 40 people protested outside. The University spent approximately $15,000 on security and incidental expenses and had approximately 104 to 114 officers available at the venue.

The University’s Large-Scale Events Process applied to student-group events in large venues or outdoor spaces that might draw a significant crowd or create significant security concerns. The process required information about the speaker, event logistics, security concerns, marketing, ticketing, and finances. The opinion states that the process was not mandatory and that SCV did not complete the process’s forms or prepare a formal proposal for the Shapiro event. Instead, SCV worked with the University’s Student Unions and Activities office and University police on event planning.

Parties’ Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that University officials moved or kept Shapiro’s event away from the more central parts of campus because of his conservative views and expected protests. They argued that officials improperly rejected or withheld larger venues, applied the Large-Scale Events Process selectively, and refused to move the event after tickets sold out. They also argued that the University’s security concerns were a pretext for viewpoint discrimination.

The defendants argued that their actions were based on neutral safety and logistical considerations. Those considerations included the number and location of entrances, connections to skyways and tunnels, potential effects on medical facilities and transportation, available police resources, prior protest activity at Shapiro’s speeches and SCV’s Lauren Southern event, and the difficulty of changing police and transportation plans shortly before the event.

Court’s Analysis

The Court reaffirmed that the relevant University venues were limited public forums. In such forums, a public institution may impose restrictions that are reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and that do not discriminate based on viewpoint.

As to Kaler, the Court found that his statement that West Bank was a better location was based on safety concerns related to possible protests and disruption. The Court found no evidence that Kaler directed officials to place the event on the St. Paul campus or that his views were considered during the later planning process. The officials primarily involved in planning were unaware of Kaler’s email. The Court therefore found no First Amendment violation and held that Kaler was entitled to qualified immunity, which generally protects government officials from personal liability unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

As to Berthelsen, the Court found that his involvement was minimal. He forwarded information about the event to University personnel who needed to know about it but did not otherwise participate in choosing the venue. The Court also found that his decision not to move the sold-out event was supported by the existing security, transportation, and public-safety arrangements. The Court noted that the record did not show that SCV actually asked University officials to move the event after the tickets sold out. Berthelsen was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

As to Clark, the Court found that he did not personally decide that Willey Hall was unsuitable and that his statements about moving the event to St. Paul reflected his understanding of an agreement among Buhta, Dussault, and the student group. The Court also found that Clark’s expectations about the crowd size and possible protests had factual support in the record. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the University had imposed a “heckler’s veto,” explaining that the speech was not banned and that Shapiro was able to speak, answer questions, and reach additional viewers through the livestream. Clark was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

As to Dussault and Buhta, the Court found that they acted in response to security concerns raised during planning for the earlier Lauren Southern event and by the student group’s own statements that the Shapiro event could be larger and more controversial. The Court found no evidence that either official knew enough about Shapiro’s political views to have acted because of them. It also found that the venue decisions were supported by security concerns involving the Mayo Auditorium and Willey Hall, and that the cited comparison events were not sufficiently similar. Dussault and Buhta were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Official-Capacity Claims

The plaintiffs also asserted an official-capacity claim for injunctive relief against Berthelsen, Clark, Buhta, and Dussault. The Court explained that such a claim effectively seeks relief against the University and requires proof that a University policy or custom violated the plaintiffs’ rights. Because SCV did not actually complete or go through the Large-Scale Events Process for the Shapiro event, the Court found no evidence that the defendants applied a University policy to SCV in a way that violated its rights. The Court granted summary judgment to these defendants on the official-capacity claim.

Disposition

The Court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.